From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (May 2017, #03; Wed, 10)
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 14:29:46 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqd1be7id1.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1.1705111506030.146734@virtualbox> (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Thu, 11 May 2017 15:08:35 +0200 (CEST)")
Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> Hi Junio,
>
> On Wed, 10 May 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> * jc/bundle (2016-03-03) 6 commits
>> - index-pack: --clone-bundle option
>> - Merge branch 'jc/index-pack' into jc/bundle
>> - bundle v3: the beginning
>> - bundle: keep a copy of bundle file name in the in-core bundle header
>> - bundle: plug resource leak
>> - bundle doc: 'verify' is not about verifying the bundle
>>
>> The beginning of "split bundle", which could be one of the
>> ingredients to allow "git clone" traffic off of the core server
>> network to CDN.
>>
>> This was surrected from a "to be discarded" pile, as from time to
>> time people wonder about resumable clone that can be primed without
>> bothering Git servers with dynamic packfile creation, and some
>> people seem to think that the topic could serve as a useful
>> building block for that goal. But nothing seem to have happend.
>> Unless people really want it, I am inclined to discard this topic.
>> Opinions?
>
> The primary concern that wants to be solved by these patches is the
> resumable clone, right?
>
> If so, I think that we may want to rethink that approach. If your
> bandwidth is flakey and your repository is large, the upcoming work to
> support fetching objects incrementally (there are three competing
> proposals about this IIUC, hopefully they will settle into a single
> approach soon) may actually be the better way forward.
In short, these won't help, those who asked them to be kept a bit
longer in my tree were mistaken, and nobody will miss them if I just
discarded this topic?
I'm all for that ;-) The smaller number of patches I need to carry
around, the better.
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-12 5:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-10 5:18 What's cooking in git.git (May 2017, #03; Wed, 10) Junio C Hamano
2017-05-10 8:08 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2017-05-10 9:04 ` Jean-Noël AVILA
2017-05-11 1:12 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-05-11 2:50 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-05-10 8:12 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2017-05-11 2:19 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-05-11 13:08 ` Johannes Schindelin
2017-05-12 5:29 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2017-05-11 13:09 ` Johannes Schindelin
2017-05-11 16:35 ` Lars Schneider
2017-05-11 21:31 ` Marc Branchaud
2017-05-11 23:38 ` Jeff King
2017-05-12 1:01 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqd1be7id1.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).